The Joes Strike Back!

The Outfoxed gals pile fiction on ignorance, topped by lies. But what
happens when their readers start to mutiny? With J$P Audio!

We don't blame anyone for refusing to read the newshounds (another fine
product of the Outfoxed mob). They say sometimes it's better to be uninformed
than misinformed--and where the hounds are concerned, there is danger of being
both! Newspup deborah has been on the job for over a year, and yet still hasn't
learned how to spell Mort Kondracke's name. And since it's deborah, we know
there has to be at least one mangled
quote:

[Tony Snow] claimed that there was one week in July that was the least violent so far in Iraq...

SNOW:
We've had a horrible week, no doubt about it. But the month of July was
the least
violent...

...and everyone just needs to talk about victory more.

SNOW:
I think if the President concentrates on talking about victory, he'll win
politically.

Then debbie adds to the
deception:

According to Kondaracke [sic], CAFTA, good job numbers, Bolton and Roberts were the good news. Then Kondaracke [sic] listed the bad news.
Violence in Iraq
Tanking Social Security initiative
Karl Rove/ CIA leak
Very low poll numbers
Mort Kondaracke [sic] rushed right through the list of problems as if he was walking over hot coals.

Hmm. Was there more to Mort's list than debbie reported? It must
have been an oversight. Yeah, that's the ticket. But it's going to be a bit more
difficult to explain away Janie's fudging
of a recent Dayside broadcast involving the energy bill.

[Mike] Jerrick began the segment by stating that President Bush has finally gotten something that has been on his wishlist for the past 5 years.

He
didn't use the term "wishlist", but that's an acceptable
paraphrase.

He turned the segment over to Mike Emmanuel [sic] who gave a more "detailed" explination [sic] of what the bill entails...He mentions what the "critics" say very briefly, but never actually delves into any of the points that these critics have issue with.....Fox also neglects to mention that the bill gives $2.7 billion in tax breaks to oil corporations....rather than having to discuss what the bill actually contains, they simply ignore the complaints of the critics, in order to keep the audience in the dark

What
probie Janie neglects to mention is that Fox did point out the money
going to energy companies:

And
before the haters start claiming that putting it on a banner doesn't count,
remember that the curs insist
that "Fox uses banners at the bottom of the screen to tell viewers what they are
supposed to get out of the story". So according to the hounds themselves, Fox
was trying to highlight it.

But wait, there's more! Not only
was there the banner, but also this exchange:

RICH LOWRY: I'm afraid
though, today, I'm going to say some things that Ellis agrees with....This bill
represents what Congress does best, which is just spread money around and waste
money and throw free money at people, which is does in forms of subsidies for
every kind of energy production in the country. So I think it's a bit of a waste
of time.ELLIS HENICAN: It's good for the oil companies, but it
doesn't do squat for us. I mean, Americans this summer are paying, what,
$2.50 a gallon for gasoline in a lot of places? It will not do anything about
that.

What's this? Janie said Fox "ignores" the critics. How
can this be? It can only be because Janie made both Lowry and Henican victims of
the "invisible man" treatment--what they said didn't match her preconceived
frame, so she just erased them from the program.

[Shepard] Smith read "Scientists testing the wind in New York City in hopes of saving lives should the unthinkable ever happen. They released colorless, harmless gas around the Big Apple today. The goal: see how a chemical or biological weapon might sweep through the city, and figure out the best way to get people out." While viewers are being terrorized by the thought of such an attack, Fox reassures them that the government is working hard to take care of them when it happens. What a powerful soundbite! Regular Fox viewers don't even realized how badly they're yanked, from resenting the government to absolutely trusting it and back again.

Except
that the Associated Press report that the story was taken from can be found on
scores
of news websites. Yes, we know, they're all in it too. They're all
being "yanked"--by the AP! Meanwhile, nancy shows herself to be equally
ill-informed:

Greg Kelly reported on the US military planning a "domestic military response" in case of a terror attack in the US....If they're leaking this via Fox, is it more than a contingency plan?

Sorry,
nancy. Nobody is "leaking via Fox". The story broke
in the Washington Post. Oops. But there were unsettling
rumblings from the
pound:

It began: The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch shares the same grief as relatives mourning the deaths of Ohio Marines, yet their views about the war differ. Comment: "Differ?" Those who "differ" with Sheehan are the blessed. They believe Bush. They don't question Bush. Read the article. As Fox has it, the Ohio relatives are far more patriotic than Cindy Sheehan. Sheehan is a troublemaker. So much for Fox's "support our troops" mantra.

The
immediate response was typical, as the credulous are easily
convinced:

I think that Fox News knows its audience and believes that they (its audience) doesn't read past the first paragraph - so they put misleading info in the first paragraph. If you go on to actually read the entire article Fox quote [sic] 2 parents of slain Ohio marines - one is backing the war and the other agrees with Cindy Sheehan. Therefore that first paragaph is totally misleading....Posted by: LD

But
soon there were more growlings of discontent from the
pack:

Nowhere, in the content or tone of the article cited, was there even a slight suggestion that the parents of fallen troops who support the war are more patriotic than Ms. Sheehan. Nor did it imply that she was a "troublemaker."...There was no editorializing by the article writer, whatsoever.... Posted by: Interested Bystander

As
it turns out, this horribly slanted article, crafted by Fox to serve its own
devious purposes, wasn't written by Fox at all. It is yet another
Associated Press report (and says so, right at the top of the piece--nice
catch, Mel!). And that repulsive wording, that Melanie claims shows you "as Fox
has it", can be found on roughly 70 different news sites that subscribe to the
AP. Including CBS
News. Oops again.

The discontent simmering among the
average Joes was about to erupt. It was nancy who lit the fuse, starting out
with a classic
hound
HeadLie:

Successful Sub Rescue Doesn't Merit an ALERT on FoxWhen I signed on to the net shortly after 3:00am (EDT) today, I read that the 7 Russian sailors who had been trapped in a sunken sub had been rescued (yippee!). So at 3:15am (EDT) I turned on FNC, just to see how they'd cover this. A rebroadcast of "Fox Report" was in progress....Finally, at 4:12am, Carol Iovanna read headlines that include the rescue....Fox News Live was all over this story last Friday, with much hullaballoo about how the US Navy was rushing to the rescue. But the rescue itself didn't merit even an interruption of a rebroadcast, much less an ALERT.

According
to nancy, because she saw no alerts at 3:15 in the morning for a rescue that
occurred nearly three hours before, therefore there were no alerts whatsoever.
That is truly hound logic, and even the kennel dwellers saw through it. And it's
great that for once, we can just sit back and let the outraged commenters do our
work for
us:

They had been covering it since shortly before 10 pm, when the news broke that it was nearly freed. They provided alerts throughout the night, I went to bed around 1 am and had seen it reported several times. I was talking to a friend just before midnight when we both saw a lengthy report that the sub had surfaced and all 7 sailors were alive and safe. It was fully reported that a British vehicle had arrived first and was responsible for the rescue, and nothing negative was said about them. FNC did cover it, just not during the time you were watching. It was at the top and bottom of every hour for the 4 hours I watched, with updates in between as something new broke. With all due respect Nancy, you are absolutely incorrect in saying this story didn't warrant a FOX News Alert. It received several when the news first broke, more than 3 hours before you turned on your TV. Posted by: OverHere

This story was covered by Fox. They had a Fox News Alert around 10 pm even before it was confirmed that the sailors were still alive. Fox was waiting for more details so they switched back to other news stories. I changed to CNN and Headline News right after that and neither channel had anything on about the sub. Nothing at all. So why aren't you criticizing CNN? And Fox had many News Alerts updating the sub situation throughout the night. Nancy, your post is a total lie. You either didn't watch Fox, or you did watch and decided to lie anyway and say Fox didn't cover the story. It cracks me up that you newsmutts complain about Fox lying and skewing news stories yet you all turn around and DO THE EXACT SAME THING!!!! You all make up lies about what they do and don't cover. To anyone that comes to this site and believes this nonsense, I suggest you start watching Fox so you can make up your own mind about them. The lies told here are a great disservice not only to Fox, but also to you. Posted by: Renee

Everything she said is correct, because I did the same thing she did--when I saw the first reports that the sub had been freed, I flipped between FNC, CNN, and MSNBC. The only report I saw on CNN was a few minutes around midnight where they switched to the CNN International broadcast. I was flipping back and forth too, so I admit that I could have missed a report on CNN. But the report from CNNI that I saw was almost identical to the reports I saw on FNC. I saw no reports on MSNBC, but I am willing to believe that they did cover it, I just missed it. You all would have a lot more credibility if you stuck to the facts and reported your perception of them, rather than making things up just to make FNC look bad. Posted by: OverHere

Nancy
can't take criticism, so she jumps in with a defense, and starts it out with
another
falsehood:

The announcement that the sailors had been rescued was made shortly before 3:00am EDT.

Huh?
What announcement? The one she happened to see on some web page? Actually they
were rescued during the 12:00am EDT hour, as Fox reported, live--and, yes, with
an "alert" and "interruption of a
rebroadcast".

When the story was unfolding, Fox was all over it, with multiple ALERTS & special emphasis on one aspect (rah rah US Navy). When the story ended with a successful rescue (by someone other than the US Navy) Fox buried it. Get it? Got it? Good. Posted by: nancy

But
the Joes weren't buying
it:

I think everyone knows how much I loathe Fox News, but to be fair, I saw that the sailors had been rescued--on FOX while channel-surfing--at about 10pm CDT last night. So if you were watching 4-5 hours later, you probably wouldn't have seen an interruption of programming because it was old news already. Posted by: Sandi

There was extensive coverage as the news was breaking, which began at approximately 9:30 pm Eastern Time Saturday and continued through at least 1 am Eastern Time Sunday. There may have only been one news report FOUR HOURS AFTER the rescue, but that does not equal a lack of coverage....Posted by: OverHere

Finally,
our buddy "the reasonable man" offered this
commentary:

There were alerts all over the place when the rescue actually took place, hours before she decided to start watching. But rather than admit her wording was imprecise, she stonewalls, digs in, and does it again: "When the story ended with a successful rescue (by someone other than the US Navy) Fox buried it."How would you know? You weren't watching when the story ended with a successful rescue. You were watching hours later, in the middle of the night.

This,
of course, was the last straw. These uppity commenters have to know who's boss.
So nancy rushed to the delete key to nip this insurrection in the
bud.

Ah, that's much better. Nice and peaceful now. The rabble have
been put in their place. That will show them. They won't dare question hound
authority again.

I'm sure this is clear from my comments, but I have never supported the
poodles or any of their faithful. I don't play their stupid sniping
games and in spite of their idiocy and irrational name-calling I try to
remain civil to them, but I definitely do not agree with their
positions or their evil hater agenda.

But again, I am honored to be quoted on your Web site!
August 10, 2005, 5:24:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
OverHere, it's good to have you overhere. You tried to show them the
path of truth and honesty; it's not your fault that it didn't take!
August 10, 2005, 5:52:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
OverHere
Thanks Johnny! It was actually the hounds who clued me in to your Web
site, they bash it so much over there I figured it must be worth
checking out. I'm glad I did!!
August 10, 2005, 7:43:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Renee
Wow. I made J$. Thanks!
August 10, 2005, 9:26:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply
tomaig
Here's an idea....
Collect a sampler of some of the incredibly hate-filled ravings of some
of the regulars there.

There are a few that could REALLY use some therapy / medications for
the churning boiling rage they express towards anyone who doesn't toe
the line, or who questions the veracity or interpretations posted by
the "Hounds.

The thread from 8/10...
O'Reilly should retract..."
seems to provide some good examples...

"Big talker, huh, all talk and no action, as usual from a 1" l*mp d*ck!
...you f@Here's an idea.... Collect a sampler of some of the incredibly
hate-filled ravings of some of the regulars there. There are a few that
could REALLY use some therapy / medications for the churning boiling
rage they express towards anyone who doesn't toe the line, or who
questions the veracity or interpretations posted by the "Hounds. The
thread from 8/10... O'Reilly should retract..." seems to provide some
good examples... "Big talker, huh, all talk and no action, as usual
from a 1" l*mp d*ck! ...you f@$&ing coward...." [language editing
by J$] and what would any discussion among the true believers be
without the gratuitous accusation that our soldiers / Marines are war
criminals? "there could be some 'doubts' as to why they were sent to a
war based on LIES and then have to think about some of the atrocities
they were forced to participate in!!!" Please, Johnny....Won't you
help?ing coward...." [language editing by J$]

and what would any discussion among the true believers be without the
gratuitous accusation that our soldiers / Marines are war criminals?

"there could be some 'doubts' as to why they were sent to a war based
on LIES and then have to think about some of the atrocities they were
forced to participate in!!!"

Please, Johnny....Won't you help?
August 11, 2005, 7:31:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply
OverHere
Oh tomaig, their hatred for the military is legendary. My boyfriend
died over in Iraq and I once posted that over there (don't ask me why,
it was in a thread about the number of casualties reaching 1700) and
their regulars expressed sympathy for me in one breath, and then went
on spewing their venom in the next. One idiot even had the courtesy to
wait until the next day before calling him a war criminal. But he died
bringing supplies to our troops and Iraqi villagers. And his job during
the war was flying wounded Marines and soldiers to the hospital. None
of that mattered to them. He wore the uniform of the United States
Marine Corps so he was a war criminal. I don't even read their military
comments anymore because they just make me mad.

But like Johnny's article shows (in an effort to say SOMETHING on-topic
here...lol), their commenters (even the regulars) are starting to see
through them. It's only a matter of time before they will implode and I
can't say I'll be sorry to see it happen.
August 11, 2005, 11:08:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Renee
Quote:

It's only a matter of time before they will implode and I can't say
I'll be sorry to see it happen.

--------------------
I hope there's a Fox News Alert when that happens.
August 11, 2005, 11:55:47 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Jim
Not to be too off-topic, but the same mutiny is taking place with the
comparisons betwwen Beth Holloway Twitty and Cindy Sheehan. It's
actually funny to watch.
August 12, 2005, 10:03:13 AM EDT – Like – Reply
BIORsGhost
Good afternoon, rightwing, chickenhawk, brainwashed, am-hate jock
parroting, FNC-worshiping, USA destroying, mental patients who don't
comprehend the phrase "intelligence is fixed around policy", or know
what a "neocon" is or who they are in your own party, even though
they've hijacked it and now control it along with moronic televangelist
types. And, who are too freakin stupid to tell the obvious difference
between propaganda and news... I found your utterly pathetic little bit
of cyberspace...

Greetings!

So - I think, just for ducks, I'll play "Johnny (|)" on this site from
time to time. Congrats, Johnny (|), you now have THREE unique visitors
to your pointless masturbatory circle jerk of a blog.

'Cept, unlike Mr. Dollar, I'm not a nitpicker caught up in ridiculous
minutiae, while completely losing site of the "big pic" in some
overzealous (and silly) attempt at a "gotcha" moment. I just sooooooooo
love to rub your face in the reeking sh*$t of your own lack of logic.

Besides, this joint needs a little action. To much of a FNC love
fest/circle-jerk happening... I'll post with a barfbag nearby...

You have been given fair warning. Prepare to have your insipidness
exposed. If I insult you along the way, try not to get too
psychologically damaged... more than you already appear to be, anyway.

Ya saw fit to overstate your case using my quote, which was a fair
criticism of ONE particular thread (OBTW... would you EVER adknowldege
if YOU actually agreed with one of their criticisms of FNC??? 'Course
not! Wanna know why??? Because you're 100% intellectually dishonest...)

I digress, so why didn't you post THIS quote???

Let's expose Johnny $...

Part 1. :

"The Transportation Security Administration, which administers the
lists, instructs airlines not to deny boarding to children under 12 or
select them for extra security checks even if their names match those
on a list."

--- Fair enough point. However, he leaves out the very next sentence:

PartII

"But it happens anyway. Debby McElroy, president of the Regional
Airline Association, said: "Our information indicates it happens at
every major airport."

Part III

--- and the next one:

The TSA has a "passenger ombudsman" who will investigate individual
claims from passengers who say they are mistakenly on the lists. TSA
spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said 89 children have submitted their names
to the ombudsman. Of those, 14 are under the age of 2.

Part IV

Comment: This is an example of a 1/2 truth. And, it's classic Johnny $.
The "BIG PICTURE" is the administration's policies via the TSA "No Fly
List" is causing confusion at airports. In fact the title of the
article is... "Babies Caught Up in 'No-Fly' Confusion". It's sites that
at one airport 14 or 89 of names on the "No Fly" list are under the age
of 2(!). That's 16%(!) under the age of 2 on the list.

Which illustrates:

1. The adminstration's execution of their security procedures is pretty
pathetic if 16% of the names on the list in the example I've referenced
are less than 2 years old.

2. The administration's execution of their security procedures is
EXTREMELY lacking in terms of insuring there is a clear understanding
at the entry point - the airports, as evident in the (willfully out of
context) passage ->YOU
August 25, 2005, 6:58:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Sorry, BIOR, but you are mistaken. The point is not who is at fault,
the administration, the airport, or your next door neighbor. You're new
here, so you're going to have to understand this. If you want to say
the Bush adminsitration is responsible for this, the tsunamis, and
sunspots, knock yourself out.

My point is not who's responsible, but rather that the quote, used by
the hounds to prove Fox bias, originated with the Associated Press. The
AP article had a lot of quotes in it, but I'm not going to waste space
going over every line in the AP story.

The hounds focused on that ONE LINE. They claimed its purpose was to
prevent anyone from blaming the Bush administration. How could that
have been the purpose of it, when it came from the Associated Press?
Was the AP also trying to protect Bush?

Mel took a line that came from the AP and painted it as a Fox trick to
protect Bush. But oops, she didn't do her homework and didn't realize
it came from the AP. That's why, when the fact came out, she did a
secret, sleath rewrite of her article, shifting the attention to the
fact that the line came at the tail end of the interview. And
unfortunately for Mel, that lie has been exposed too.
August 25, 2005, 7:19:18 PM EDT – Like – Reply